Natural disasters command attention when they strike. They dominate
the evening news and appear on the front page of the newspaper. Images
of lives lost, homes wrecked and rescuers working against the odds engage
our sympathy. But the images fade before we as a society can ask the difficult
question: Why were the victims vulnerable to these forces of nature? How
can we reduce that vulnerability in the future?

William Hooke, a senior policy fellow at the American Meteorological
Society, has pointed out the difference in public attitude toward natural
disasters and human-initiated ones. After an airplane crashes, we want
to know exactly what caused the accident and how we can ensure that it
never happens again.

Where is a National Transportation Safety Board for earthquakes, tornadoes
or floods? After a natural disaster, our attention is on the undaunted
survivors who are determined to rebuild just as before — in the floodplain,
on the barrier island, at the base of the unstable slope, right back in
harm’s way.

Such attitudes are a vestige of the perception that natural disasters
are inexplicable acts of God. This perception is one of many obstacles
we must overcome before we can effectively mitigate the impacts of these
hazards and avoid repetitive losses. Those obstacles present a daunting
challenge, but a broad coalition of organizations concerned with the toll
of natural disasters has put together a blueprint on how Congress can start
to turn the tide.

Getting congressional attention

That blueprint was released at a Jan. 22 roundtable forum held on Capitol
Hill by the Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus. Its two speakers were
Hooke and U.S. Geological Survey Chief Geologist Pat Leahy, who briefed
the caucus on the recent earthquake and landslides that killed 600 people
in El Salvador. Later that same week, a much larger earthquake would kill
more than 15,000 people in India. And two weeks earlier in California,
winter storms put more strain on power grids already near collapse, showing
that natural hazards must be addressed in the context of many other policy
issues — including energy policy — before Congress.

Established last summer by co-chairs Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and
Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), the caucus represents real progress toward
improving the congressional attention span on natural hazards issues. Fifteen
other senators have joined Stevens and Edwards on the caucus, one of many
such informal, issue-oriented organizations in both the House and Senate.

Unlike congressional committees, caucuses do not serve an official function,
but are an important mechanism for like-minded legislators to come together
and raise the issues they care about above the noise. Caucuses are also
incubators for legislation and policy initiatives.

The most successful caucuses are those with strong external support
from groups that can organize events and generate publicity. AGI and the
American Geophysical Union have spearheaded efforts to establish a Natural
Hazards Caucus Work Group to support this caucus.

Forty-seven organizations are participating, including scientific and
engineering societies, professional organizations of emergency managers
and floodplain managers, university consortia, insurance companies, home
builders, high-tech companies, the American Red Cross and even the Weather
Channel. Despite their disparate interests, all these groups share a common
mission to reduce the impacts of natural hazards on society.

Action items for Congress

At a kickoff event for the caucus last June, the senators directed the
work group to lay out the key natural hazard challenges facing the nation
and what Congress could do about them. The resulting discussion paper,
released at the January roundtable, summarizes larger initiatives that
will take many years to achieve and identifies six key actions that Congress
can take right away:

“Congress can designate an executive branch agency to compile and publish
the true costs of natural disasters.

“Congress can establish a means to inform itself of the costs and benefits
of mitigation, and insist that responsible executive branch agencies systematically
document the cost-effectiveness of their mitigation programs.

“Congress can require that agencies support geophysical, oceanic and atmospheric
research and instrumentation that increases lead times, accuracy and specificity
of warnings.

“Congress can work with federal agencies, state and local government and
the private sector to improve coordination beyond the immediate post-disaster
period.

“Congress can urge that proposed legislation not increase the nation’s
vulnerability to natural hazards and set an example by insisting that the
siting of new federal facilities should include cost-effective mitigation
measures.”

“Congress can identify and remove barriers that may prevent the entry of
new technologies into the marketplace that could improve hazard mitigation.”

New administration, new attitude?

Capitol Hill is not the only place in Washington where natural hazards
issues could use a higher profile. The Natural Hazards Caucus Work Group
also prepared a document for the Bush-Cheney presidential transition team.
Signed by the leaders of 35 organizations, the transition document contains
the same themes as the discussion paper. It urges the new administration
to give priority to initiatives that will build the nation’s resilience
to natural hazards.

As the cover of the transition document states, “The time has come for
a new approach to natural hazards.” Reaching that goal will take a coordinated
effort by Congress and the new administration. The caucus can play an important
role in providing momentum to move the issue forward and, ultimately, ensure
that fewer natural hazards turn into human disasters.

Applegate is director of the American Geological
Institute’s Government Affairs Program and is editor of Geotimes. E-mail:
applegate@agiweb.org.